Computer interfaces have historically been based on
metaphors of existing media. As Lev Manovich writes, the original computer
metaphor was that of an office desktop. This made sense in the 1970s and 80s,
when computers were almost entirely work machines. In the 1990s, with the
advent of the World Wide Web, Manovich notes that the metaphor shifted to “media-access
machines” such as VCRs or CD players (89). Manovich made these observations in
2001, just after the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and before the rise of “Web
2.0”, the current paradigm of human-computer interaction (HCI). So what’s the
current metaphor?
I have a hard time answering that question. The desktop and
media metaphors still exist, but they’ve been subsumed into an always-online
world that I can’t easily fit into any older media form. The most prominent
difference between HCI now and the turn of the millennium is increased
interaction. While chat rooms and message boards existed before, these look
like huddled conversations in a corner compared to the constant bullhorn
pronouncements and responses that characterize a platform like Twitter. There’s
also the strange decline in anonymity; whereas the web interactions of old were
often between people adopting pseudonyms, the current interfaces encourage
linking one’s online identity to the real world.
I’m tempted to say that contemporary HCI is based on no
metaphor or all previous metaphors simultaneously. But maybe it’s that, stacked
on top of the old desktop, and static media-viewing, there is now a metaphor
for human interaction in general. Instead of simply performing tasks or
passively viewing or listening to media, we are now encouraged by our interface
to “comment” on something, or “tag” something as related to another thing.
Manovich observes that the computer had shifted from being
simply technology to being a “filter for all culture…the art gallery wall,
library and book, all at once” (64). This observation fits with his
understanding of the then-metaphor of computer-as-media-machine. I think it’s
fair to say the computer is now a filter not just for all culture, but for all
interaction between people. What other conclusion could you draw when most
people now carry powerful computers around in their pockets whose primary
function is communication? In this sense, I don’t think that the “the lines
between the human and its technological creations” are as clearly drawn as
Apple’s 1984 Macintosh represents to Manovich (63). The aesthetic is still
relevant, but the lines are decidedly blurry.
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. 2001.
I so agree that "it’s fair to say the computer is now a filter not just for all culture, but for all interaction between people." I can no longer image how I would get ahold of someone without texting. Texting is easier than calling and I can control better what is said, edit, revise, etc. Of course some conversations still require old fashioned phone calls (like for bad news, although I have received some bad news in texts). An interface of interactions describes our world now.
ReplyDeleteWow, you have a strong understanding of Manovich. When you mention that chat rooms growing and now expecting people to link their real life information to it is crazy true and something I hadn't even thought of while reading Manovich. I can see how this would lead to increased interaction because many people today look for friends and people to date and having the ability to look at them in a "raw" way seems the quickest way to get to know them. By "raw" I mean the unfiltered version that people post online, such as their daily activities, their habits, their favorite foods, about themselves and their family, likes and dislikes, their methods of communication and style, and overall, an online representation of what they are like in person. Being able to look that all up would probably lead a lot of people to want to communicate and get to know someone better.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not participate in this type of interaction very much, it is widely done so by people my age and it's apparently the easiest and most common way today to interact with others.
Yes, I think that's it exactly. We're living in the paradigm of representing our idealized selves. "Idealized" being the key word. I think that's the identity we actively put online. The sum of the data about our activities, likes and dislikes, as you mention, might be closer to who we really are. And that, of course, is what companies are really interested in.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly and have always found it interesting how people sort of brag about their wonderful, problem-free, idealized lives online and then when you get to know them in person, they seem to be just normal or even average. I think it says something about us as a culture (the facade we try to put forth online). And of course, nothing beats the (online data summaries, etc.) factual truth!
ReplyDeleteI also agree. It is amazing how we post so many good things about ourselves online. And it always looks too good to be true and it is easy to get jealous. I sometimes try to imagine the times when we didn't know what our friends were doing every little second of our lives. Instead of looking at pictures or posts, we could probably fill it into hours of conversation.
ReplyDeleteIt is a strange time our generation is growing into, as some of the first generations of people who have grown up with the internet around for not only our formative years, but during the formative years of the internet. The online world has already changed our communication, as it has also changed from the early years of message boards, forums, and fringe websites. Humans as a whole are still developing a sense of online presence, when it comes to etiquette and normality in our sharing of information. As our generation grows, so will the continued integration of technology into our social and economic landscapes.
ReplyDelete